So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

what BS. the man is going to make use of old school physical training and a BatMan Utility Belt filled with weapons and restraints the second they feel someone crosses a perceived line. these are people who receive two weeks paid vacation for killing an unarmed civilian.

pedrop357:The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does. Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?

It's not that they do not want to participate in society, it is that they reject social standards for cooperation and seek to play life by their own arbitrary rules while remaining in society.

No, I was making a joke. Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.

JesseL:I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.struggle with reading comprehension, and have difficulty paying attention.

fark sovereigns. I think "terrorist" is an appropriate classification.

bighairyguy:I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!Officer: Your license and registration please.Repeat as necessary.

and you wonder why they're just shooting the cops right away...............

lostcat:So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges. If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract. No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay. The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society. It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.

cig-mkr:So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

See, someone might get sick from the fish, might need medical treatment, might seek treatment in an emergency room, might not have enough to pay, and might not pay, thus the government is justified in enforcing building codes, zoning rules, etc. (little of which have to do the with concept of getting sick from bad fish)

Fuggin Bizzy:Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists? A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda. While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?

I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think. Yes, the 2001 attacks were the work of terrorists. We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops. While cops are not military I would not classify them as civilian either. The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think the sovereigns attack cops to advance a political agenda. The confrontations with police are an unfortunate outcome of their delusional thinking but they don't go out of their way to attack cops. Nor do they do so as a means of advancing their cause. It only happens when they are pulled over or otherwise confronted by a cop, which they mistakenly interpret as an attack on their freedom. If they were running around looking for cops to attack and claiming that by attacking the cop they were helping their cause then I would agree that they are terrorists.

Ima4nic8or:Fuggin Bizzy: Ima4nic8or: The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists? A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda. While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

No, terrorists are people who fly planes into large buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. See, I can redefine words too. That doesn't mean it's correct. These guys kill cops who stop them for minor traffic violations. To advance a political agenda. Cops are generally not considered military actors. They're authorized to kill when necessary, but that's not even 1% of their day-to-day job. The Pentagon - now that was unquestionably a military target. Does that mean the attack on it in 2001 was not a terrorist attack?

I am not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think. Yes, the 2001 attacks were the work of terrorists. We also certainly agree that the sovereigns are dirt-bags who kill cops. While cops are not military I would not classify them as civilian either. The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think the sovereigns attack cops to advance a political agenda. The confrontations with police are an unfortunate outcome of their delusional thinking but they don't go out of their way to attack cops. Nor do they do so as a means of advancing their cause. It only happens when they are pulled over or otherwise confronted by a cop, which they mistakenly interpret as an attack on their freedom. If they were running around looking for cops to attack and claiming that by attacking the cop they were helping their cause then I would agree that they are terrorists.

Unless they are intentionally breaking the laws by speeding or using fake license plates, and thus intentionally creating confrontations that can lead to violence.

earthworm2.0:I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.

Last I read, police kill around 300-400 people each year, with nearly all of them being classified as self-defense (usually by the department that employs the officer). Non-police kill around 50-70 police officers each year, with all of them being considered murder. In a typical year as many or more police officers will die in traffic crashes as are killed by non-police.

Fuggin Bizzy:JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.struggle with reading comprehension, and have difficulty paying attention.

fark sovereigns. I think "terrorist" is an appropriate classification.

You really think 1 in every 1000 of the people in this country is a terrorist?

Yet somehow you can still look outside and I doubt it much resembles a warzone (assuming you're not in Detroit).

cig-mkr:So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.

Many, many, many moons ago I worked for a small mortgage servicer and these guys were a frequent thorn in our sides. They'd mail on fake checks with explanatory pamphlets that would say since paper was good enough for the govy, should be good enough for us. They'd file fake release of liens for their mortgage, and then contest the case through ridiculous, nonsensical (but amusing) filings that read like a new Nicholas Cage movie.

I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people. They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws. Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens. What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used. What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws. Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes? Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.

No, I was making a joke. Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.

Oh fark off.

Everyone's always making a joke when their straight post in a sea of straight posts is responded to in a manner they don't like.

Basically this is the Jon Stewart car; talk politics, then go "gee shucks I'm a comedian" when someone calls him on his shiat.

pedrop357:lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges. If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract. No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay. The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society. It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

BigLuca:I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people. They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws. Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens. What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used. What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws. Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes? Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.

Perhaps we could compromise and make it easier (or stop deliberately making it hard) for people to live more on their own.

When the law treats minor "off the grid" no different than completely "off the grid", why bother being half-assed about it?

Ya know, there are some places in the middle east(or Detroit) where if you used CIA airlines to drop these sovereigns off, without weapons,It would be farking hilarious to see them challenge local laws. Especially that big new tattoo on their forehead dissing the locals.All embassy's would be closed that day........

/Cops are a bit of a problem when they refuse to arrest the sovereigns for not having drivers license and car insurance and forged documents, etc. Considering how normal people are treated when part of their registration is farked up.

//Yea I know, you try to deal with a person foaming at the mouth and a herd of nutjob sovereign lawyers who would be arrested as they showed up with the same infractions. Its like the free car giveaway at the cop station for all drug dealers in town.

If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.

dksuddeth:rustypouch:If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

when the government doesn't follow the rules, why should we?

For a clear, very modern example of this, look at how the Colorado government is proposing to deal with marijuana legalization.

The people voted, they said they wanted marijuana legalized for people over 21. The legislature could have read that as mandate to tread carefully with the regulatory power they were granted, but instead are choosing to rule, regulate, tax, and prohibit as much as possible. The end result will be one only trivially different then criminalization and many of the problems that legalization was supposed to solve will remain.The government certainly isn't honoring the spirit of the ballot initiative, and in some cases are subverting the actual word of the initiative as well.

I know one of these guys, who refused to pay income tax. It wasn't that big a deal, though, since he didn't have any income. He also made his own licence plate. But I think he stopped using it when his son convinced him what a stupid idea that was.

Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.

Milo Minderbinder:If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.

So a person CAN live off the grid and be left alone? Please show anywhere that something like that is possible.

If they maintain registration and use taxed fuel, they can still drive that vehicle on public roads when they want to interact with society and they will be left alone? Doubtful.

pedrop357:No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.

Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.

There are plenty of small nations and parts of the world they could easily go to so they could relax in the peace of using only 'real' currency, no pesky governments to make sure that the person upstream doesn't dump sludge from oil wells and raw sewage in your drinking water and no hassle from the those mean old coppers making sure your POS 1974 GMC pickup with bad tires and busted back glass asking it should be on the road. Go there, and rejoice in nirvana that being a sovereign will bring to all and prove to the rest of the world how wrong the idea of a 'social contract' is.

maxalt:Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.

What annoys me most about these people is that "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.A citizen is a member of a political community or society. Sovereignty means not recognising any power higher than your own. You cannot be a member of a group if you aren't bound by the rules of that group.

wingnut396:Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.

Ahh. When the government acts the way it does to citizens in this country, "blanket of peace" is not the euphemism I would choose.

Just say "the government protects all of us, thus it owns us" and just farking be done with it.

pedrop357:Milo Minderbinder: If someone is truly off the grid, good for them. But the minute they use a road, get water or power from a public utility, or enter into a contract with someone that doesn't care about flag fringe, then they are in the adult world and are expected to play by adult rules.

So a person CAN live off the grid and be left alone? Please show anywhere that something like that is possible.

If they maintain registration and use taxed fuel, they can still drive that vehicle on public roads when they want to interact with society and they will be left alone? Doubtful.

That's my point. To be truly off the grid, you pretty much have to live like a cave man. The minute you start interacting with society, you have to play by society's rules.